TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (7) TMI 266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this common order. 2. Heard ld. Advocate Arvind P. Datar for appellant SRF Ltd. and ld. S.D.R. Shri Victor Thiagaraj for the department. 3. Briefly the facts are that M/s. SRF Ltd. were approached by another party M/s. Apollo Tyres at Trichur in Kerala State and agreed to supply Tyrecord fabrics under the provisions of Rule 191BB, which was required by M/s. Apollo Tyres for manufacture of tyres to be exported. M/s. Apollo Tyres were holders of Advance Licence under the DEC scheme for import of yarn for this purpose. They applied for permission to their jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise at Trichur to receive yarn without payment of duty from M/s. MRF Ltd. under Rule 191BB read with Notification No. 33/90-C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve permitted the present appellants to clear 250 tonnes of nylon yarn without payment of duty to M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd., Trichur subject to all the conditions under Rule 191BB. 5. Removals continued accordingly and they were not of yarn but of fabrics under the specified conditions, on job work basis. This removals being non duty paid were under AR 3 and GP 1 and these removals were under physical control being counter signed by the Inspector of Central Excise concerned. 6. However, vide letter dated 6-1-1992 of the Assistant Commissioner, Trichur, M/s. Apollo Tyres were informed that the said permission granted was withdrawn with immediate effect and that they may apply to the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin for permiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eared from Madras, the permission of the jurisdictional Assistant Collector at Madras for job work (in this case the adjudicating authority) would have been necessary to clear the fabrics without payment of duty; it was not obtained by the appellants. 9. The present appellant went in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his Order-in-Appeal No. 211/95 (M), dated 25-10-1995 set aside the demand in the order-in-original for Rs. 60,15,625/- on Nylon yarn but confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 10,50,000/- on the fabrics cleared by the appellants. This was on the ground that the said yarn was removed for captive consumption under Rule 9 read with Rule 49 in compliance with the provisions of 191BB and therefore, this removal was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., i.e. M/s. Apollo Tyres. The said consignee had already executed a bond in this respect as prescribed under the said notification, therefore no duty liability lies on the appellants. Thirdly, he argued that all the principles of Chapter 10 of Central Excise rules would also be applicable to Rules 191BB and in that respect cited the case of M/s. Siemens Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 305 (T) and C.C.E. v. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. as reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 931. He further submitted that plea of fabrics not covered and A.C. having no authority to grant permission under Rule 191BB were technical, as the clearances were made after obtaining the relevant permission from both the Assistant Collectors. Finally he said th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is no mention of violation of Rule 191BB in this show cause notice. When we consider the plea of ld. Advocate for appellants that the order-in-original has therefore proceeded beyond the scope of show cause notice, we find that this argument carries a lot of weight. Since Rule 191BB is not even mentioned in the show cause notice or in any annexure thereto, let alone there be any allegation of violation of that Rule, therefore there is no grounds set out in the said show cause notice for demanding the duty. As against this, in the order-in-original, the Assistant Collector has based his findings and decisions on the grounds already enumerated above, each one of which cover the provisions of Rule 191BB. We are, therefore clearly led to con....